Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

H.R. 9 amends and reauthorizes the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years, several provisions of which will expire on August 6, 2007, unless Congress acts to renew them.

I was proud to lead Republican efforts to renew expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, and I am pleased to have authored this important legislation to do the same thing a quarter century later.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to address our country's ignoble history of racial discrimination and to ensure that the rights enunciated in our Constitution become a practical reality for all.

Since its 1965 enactment, the VRA has been reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992, each time with strong bipartisan support. The right to vote is fundamental in our system of government, and the importance of voting rights is reflected by the fact that they are protected by five separate amendments to the Constitution, including the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendment.

However, history reveals that certain States and localities have not always been faithful to the rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and some have tried to disenfranchise African American and other minority voters through means ranging from violence and intimidation to subtle changes in voting rules. As a result, many minorities were unable to fully participate in the political process for nearly a century after the end of the Civil War.

The VRA has dramatically reduced these discriminatory practices and transformed our Nation's electoral process and makeup of our Federal, State, and local governments. Since its enactment, the VRA has been instrumental in remedying past injustices by ensuring that States and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination address and correct those abuses, and, in some instances, stopping them from happening in the first place.

Section 5 prohibits States with documented histories of racial discrimination in voting from changing election practices and processes without first submitting the changes to the Department of Justice or the District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 5 has helped ensure minority citizens in these covered jurisdictions to have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

As a result of section 5 and other provisions of the Voting Rights Act, minority participation and elections as well as the number of minorities serving in elected positions has increased significantly, and many of our colleagues who are here today are personal embodiments of those changes.

Last summer, I along with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers and Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Watt pledged to have the VRA's temporary provisions reauthorized for an additional 25 years. Over the last 7 months, the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution examined the VRA in great detail, focusing on those provisions set to expire in 2007.

In addition to gathering evidence of ongoing discriminatory conduct, the subcommittee examined the impact that two Supreme Court decisions, the Bossier II and Georgia v. Ashcroft decisions, have had on section 5's ability to protect minorities from discriminatory voting changes particularly in State and congressional redistricting initiatives.

Based upon the committee's record, and let me put the books of the hearings of this committee's record on the table, it is one of the most extensive considerations of any piece of legislation that the United States Congress has dealt with in the 27\1/2\ years that I have been honored to serve as a Member of this body. All of this is a part of the record that the Committee on the Constitution headed by Mr. Chabot of Ohio has assembled to show the need for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

H.R. 9 includes language that makes it clear that a voting change motivated by any discriminatory purpose cannot be precleared, and clarifies that the purpose of the preclearance requirements is to protect the ability of minority citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice. These changes restore section 5 to its original purpose, enabling it to better protect minority voters.

In addition, H.R. 9 reauthorizes section 203 for an additional 25 years, ensuring that legal, taxpaying, language-impaired citizens are assisted in exercising their right to vote. And, in my opinion, this is particularly important in elections where ballot questions are submitted to the voters. The committee record that formed the basis for this legislation demonstrates that, while the VRA has been successful in

protecting minority voters who are historically disenfranchised in certain parts of the country, our work is not yet complete. Racial discrimination in the electoral process continues to exist and threatens to undermine the progress that has been made over the last 40 years.

In fact, the extensive record of continued abuse compiled by the committee over the last year, which I have put on the table here today, echoes that which preceded congressional reauthorization of the VRA in 1982, and which led me to make the following observations during the committee's consideration of the VRA reauthorization legislation then:

``Testimony is quite clear that this act has been the most successful civil rights act that has ever been passed by the Congress of the United States. The overwhelming preponderance of the testimony was that the Voting Rights Act has worked. It has provided the franchise to numerous people who were denied the right to vote for one reason or another. It has provided a dramatic increase in the number of minority- elected officials in covered jurisdictions. I think that very clearly demonstrates the need for an extension. The hearings also very clearly showed that the creativity of the human mind is unlimited when it comes to proposing election law changes that are designed to prevent people from voting.''

By extending the VRA for an additional 25 years, H.R. 9 ensures that the gains made by minorities are not jeopardized. Like the preceding reauthorization efforts, this bill has strong support from Republicans and Democrats alike, including that of Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi. H.R. 9 is also supported by many prominent religious and civil rights organizations.

Mr. Chairman, among the keepsakes of my public service that I most cherish is one of the signing pens President Ronald Reagan used when enacting the 1982 Voting Rights Amendments into law. When considering their vote on the legislation now before the House, I would urge my colleagues to reflect upon President Reagan's eloquent remarks on this occasion:

``Yes, there are differences over how to attain the equality we seek for all our people. And sometimes amidst all the overblown rhetoric, the differences seem to be bigger than they are. But actions speak louder than words. This legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights. It also proves that differences can be settled in a spirit of good will and good faith.

As I've said before, the right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished. The legislation that I'm signing demonstrates America's commitment to preserving this essential right. I'm proud of the Congress for passing this legislation, and I'm proud to be able to sign it.'' Ronald Reagan, in August of 1982.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand here with my colleagues, as I did then, to ensure that voting rights remain protected for an additional 25 years. Let Congress again make America proud by passing this historical and vital legislation without amendment.

Remarks on Signing the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982

June 29, 1982.--Well, I am pleased today to sign the

legislation extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Citizens must have complete confidence in the sanctity of

their right to vote, and that's what this legislation is all

about. It provides confidence that constitutional guarantees

are being upheld and that no vote counts more than another.

To so many of our people--our Americans of Mexican descent,

our black Americans--this measure is as important

symbolically as it is practically. It says to every

individual, ``Your vote is equal; your vote is meaningful;

your vote is your constitutional right.''

I've pledged that as long as I'm in a position to uphold

the Constitution, no barrier will come between our citizens

and the voting booth. And this bill is a vital part of

fulfilling that pledge.

This act ensures equal access to the political process for

all our citizens. It securely protects the right to vote

while strengthening the safeguards against representation by

forced quota. The legislation also extends those special

provisions applicable to certain States and localities, while

at the same time providing an opportunity for the

jurisdictions to bail out from the special provisions when

appropriate. In addition, the bill extends for 10 years the

protections for language minorities.

President Eisenhower said, ``The future of the Republic is

in the hands of the American voter.'' Well, with this law, we

make sure the vote stays in the hands of every American.

Let me say how grateful I am to these gentlemen up here,

the Members of the House and Senate from both sides of the

aisle, and particularly those on the Senate Judiciary

Committee, for getting this bipartisan legislation to my

desk.

Yes, there are differences over how to attain the equality

we seek for all our people. And sometimes amidst all the

overblown rhetoric, the differences tend to seem bigger than

they are. But actions speak louder than words. This

legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights.

It also proves that differences can be settled in a spirit of

good will and good faith.

In this connection, let me also thank all the other

organizations and individuals--many who are here today--who

worked for this bill. As I've said before, the right to vote

is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see

its luster diminished.

The legislation that I'm signing is the longest extension

of the act since its enactment and demonstrates America's

commitment to preserving this essential right. I'm proud of

the Congress for passing this legislation. I'm proud to be

able to sign it.

And without saying anything further, I'm going to do that

right now.

[At this point, the President signed the bill.]

It's done.

Note: The President spoke at 12:15 p.m. at the signing

ceremony in the East Room at the White House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who held all of these hearings to show why this legislation is necessary, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Price) for purposes of a colloquy.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act coverage formula and the provisions that it triggers have been upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions and not just in 1966. The Supreme Court in 1980 in Rome v. United States, and later in 1999 in Lopez v. Monterey County, upheld the constitutionality of section 5.

In particular, in the city of Rome, the court looked at the House Judiciary Committee's finding that ``the recent objections entered by the Attorney General to section 5 submissions clearly bespeak the continuing need to this particular preclearance mechanism.''

Now, there have been objections that have been interposed to submissions that have been made in Georgia since 2000, and that is why we have to have the formula that is in section 5 and the preclearance provisions in section 5 which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Section 5 of H.R. 9 contains a sentence that states: ``The purpose of subsection B of this section is to protect the ability of such citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.''

Is it your understanding that this language in the text of the committee report that accompanies this legislation is consistent with the understanding that the purpose of this section of H.R. 9 is to ensure that no voting procedure changes will be made that will lead to a retrogression of the position of racial or language minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise, and that this determination shall be made without consideration of political party control or influence in any elective body?

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Yes, that is my understanding.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, following the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) is always a very tough act, but I would like to reiterate what he so eloquently said. We need the Voting Rights Act, and we need the Voting Rights Act because in the last 25 years the covered jurisdictions have not come clean.

Let's look at Georgia. Since 1982, there have been 91 objections, 91 objections submitted by the Department of Justice. And since 2002, there have been seven voting rule changes that were withdrawn by the State because of DOJ objections.

Texas, 105 objections imposed by DOJ since 1982, and 14 voting rule proposals were withdrawn by the State because

of voting rights concerns in the last 4 years.

Mississippi, 112 objections since 1982, and Federal observers have been sent to this State 14 times to monitor elections since 2002, most recently last year.

Louisiana, 96 objection since 1982, eight Department of Justice objections to voting rules have been lodged since 2002, most recently in 2005, and 10 voting rule proposals withdrawn by the State in the last 4 years.

South Carolina, 73 objections since 1982.

North Carolina in the covered jurisdictions, 45 objections since 1982.

And Alabama, 46 objections, and Federal observers have been assigned to the State 65 times since 2000 to monitor elections.

Arizona, 17 objections since 2002, and Federal observers have been assigned to that State 380 times since 2000 to monitor elections, including 107 since 2004.

Now, I think these figures ought to make it very clear that we need this bill, and we need this bill without any of the four amendments that are about ready to be offered.

And, finally, before we get into the debate on the amendments, I would like to offer my thanks to the staff people who have helped put together this record, Paul Taylor, the chief counsel of the Subcommittee on the Constitution; Kim Betz, the subcommittee counsel; Stephanie Moore, the Democratic counsel to the Committee on Judiciary and counsel to Mr. Watt; and, most particularly, Philip Kiko, who is chief of staff and general counsel of the committee, who is part of the institutional memory, because he helped me get the Voting Rights Act extension passed and signed in 1982.

We put in the work on this, we have done the hearings, the record is replete. We need this law extended, and we need it extended for 25 years. Vote ``yes'' on the bill, ``no'' on the amendments, and let's go down in history as the House that did the right thing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment guts the Voting Rights Act, and let's make no bones about it. It does so by altering its coverage formula to cover only those jurisdictions in which voter registration and turnout fell below 50 percent in the 2004, 2000, and 1996 Presidential elections.

Based on the Census Bureau Current Population Survey, there is not a single State, except Hawaii, with voter registration and turnout below the 50 percent level required by this amendment. That means that only the State of Hawaii in its entirety would be covered, along with random scattershot jurisdictions across the country that do not have the century-long history of discrimination that the covered States do, and which the Supreme Court requires for the application of the preclearance and Federal observer conditions contained in the VRA.

The amendment not only guts the bill, but turns the Voting Rights Act into a farce.

To give you a sense of the absurdity of this amendment, let's take the example of Montana. In Montana, the amendment would only cover Glacier County, where there has been absolutely no evidence of voting discrimination, but where voter registration and turnout fell below the thresholds established by this amendment. That is the little blue spot on the Canadian border on Mr. Norwood's map.

The amendment, however, would not cover Blaine County, where just a few years ago a Federal District Court and a U.S. Court of Appeals found widespread evidence of discrimination against American Indians, who comprised one-third of all of the voters.

This amendment would also not cover Big Horn County, where a Federal court documented the virtually complete disenfranchisement of American Indian voters, nor would it apply to several other counties in Montana where voting discrimination has occurred, such as Rosebud County.

Under this amendment, similarly absurd results apply in 38 other States. So you might want to check on how this amendment affects your State before deciding whether to vote ``yes'' on it.

In addition, the amendment would render the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. This amendment is designed to make all of the expiring provisions unconstitutional, and it simply guarantees that the Supreme Court of the United States will wipe this act off the books.

As recently as 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the current coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act. In 1999, 7 years ago. In Lopez v. Monterey County, the Supreme Court upheld the Voting Rights Act's voting rule preclearance requirement finding that it ``burdens State law only to the extent that the law affects voting in jurisdictions properly designated for coverage.''

By radically altering the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act in a way that severs its connection to jurisdictions with proven discriminatory histories, this amendment will render H.R. 9 unconstitutional and leave minority voters without the essential protections of the preclearance and the Federal observer requirements central to the VRA. The elimination of these provisions would threaten to destroy the advances of voting rights the VRA has made possible to date and must continue to protect and advance in the future.

There is broad agreement on this point. Justice Scalia, in his opinion in the recent Texas redistricting case, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, makes its clear that the Voting Rights Act with its current coverage formula will be upheld as constitutional, and that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies only to jurisdictions with a history of official discrimination.

The existing formula triggering coverage under the Voting Rights Act is not at all outdated in any meaningful sense of the term, and States covered are not unfairly punished under the coverage formula. Sixteen States are covered in whole or in part under the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The formula does not limit coverage to a particular region, but encompasses those States and jurisdictions where less than 50 percent of the citizens of voting age population registered or turned out to vote in 1964, 1968 or 1972.

But coverage is not, and I repeat ``not'' predicated on these statistics alone. States are not covered unless they applied discriminatory voting tests. And it was this aspect of the formula that brought these jurisdictions with the most serious histories of discrimination under Federal scrutiny.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has held that ``Obviously, the preclearance requirements of the original act and its reauthorization had a much larger purpose than to increase voter registration.'' On the occasion of each reauthorization, Congress reviewed voting progress, including increases in registration and turnout, and the necessity of continuing coverage under the act.

The review was no different in 2006. The Judiciary Committee had 12 hearings, called 46 witnesses, and compiled more than 12,000 pages of evidence of continued discrimination in covered jurisdictions. In Georgia alone, 91 objections were interposed by the Justice Department since 1982, including four since 2002. In Texas, 105 objections were interposed. All of these incidents involved voting rule changes that the Department of Justice determined to be discriminatory.

Indeed, the reauthorization of this formula in H.R. 9 is based on recent and proven instances of discrimination in voting rights compiled in the Judiciary Committee's 12,000-page record. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act as it exists already includes provisions that allow for the expansion and reduction of covered jurisdictions as necessary, which ensures that the list of covered jurisdictions is appropriately revised and updated.

Insofar as voting conditions have improved over the years in the covered jurisdictions, that improvement is due precisely to the Voting Rights Act itself and the requirements preventing discriminatory voting rule changes from going into effect. This amendment would abolish exactly those provisions that are directly responsible for the enhanced voting protections that the VRA has secured for millions of Americans. As a result, the amendment undermines the VRA's goal of ensuring that progress made by minority voters continues and that America never backslides in its protection of minority voting rights.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear, I believe every citizen of this country should be able to vote unencumbered. I believe, actually, that the Voting Rights Act has been and is a good thing and it should be reauthorized. I nor anybody I know is trying to do away with section 5, though I continue to hear it over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, today we battle a phantom that has haunted this Chamber since the day, probably, it was first built. It has stalked us since before we were a Nation. It poured the curse of slavery on our infant Republic. It fed the flames of regional conflict until we suffered the most devastating war in our history. It gave birth to segregation, poll taxes, and literacy tests.

This specter embodies what is perhaps our Nation's original sin: discrimination. It has dunned us with a moral debt that maybe can never be fully paid. I pray that is not the case. But then again, maybe it is only waiting for a generation with the courage to exorcise that demon out of our hearts and out of this land.

Our forebears, in spite of their many blessings that they left us, failed this challenge. They had the chance with Dred Scott and instead decided that slaves were not human beings. They had a second chance with Jim Crow, but instead built a segregated society.

Today, we have a rare chance, and I mean rare, to revisit the fundamental issue, discrimination, that our predecessors avoided dealing with.

Discrimination is the creation of laws or systems that deny a person the same rights enjoyed by their fellow human beings, not because of what they do but because of who they are. In 1965 that meant white people in many areas of this country, and especially in my beloved South, set up legal hurdles that kept people of color from voting. Not because of what they did, but simply because of who they were.

The Voting Rights Act, passed by this House in 1965, stopped that practice. It did so by temporarily denying the voters of my State and others their constitutional right to determine election practices without Federal interference.

This harsh measure, known as section 5 oversight, was not discrimination. It was not laid on these jurisdictions because of who they were, but because of what they did. Now, this is a profound point. Forty years later there is not a single member of my State legislature who served in 1964, particularly the Democrats, under those discriminatory laws. Seventy percent of today's Georgians did not live in Georgia in 1964. They are either dead or have moved away under these discriminatory laws. They were either unborn or have since moved perhaps somewhere else.

Yet H.R. 9 would leave all these people, who have committed no wrong, with diminished election rights. Not because of what they do, but because of who they are. This is blatant discrimination based on nothing more than where we live.

All who dwell on a particular type of soil, section 5 soil, now have their constitutional rights curtailed. Is the Earth beneath our feet guilty of the crimes of man? Does it then condemn all who trod on our soil? That is the contention of H.R. 9, as it ravages the rights of the innocent, those whose only offense is in where they live.

Unlike H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act did not condemn the righteous with the wicked. It reserved its penalties only for those jurisdictions where offenses

had occurred and only until those injustices were corrected. It was not a life sentence and certainly not a sentence on those yet unborn.

Georgia now outperforms the Nation, outperforms the Nation, in every area of black voting: turnout, registration, the success rate of black candidates in our State. Yet H.R. 9 turns a blind eye to these facts and seeks to let the innocent continue their punishment for another quarter of a century.

Mr. Chairman, either we restore their voting rights to equality, or the Supreme Court will be forced to do it for us. And the Court will do so in ways far more damaging to section 5 than any reasonable amendment that I am going to bring later today that we could devise.

The days of allowing the ghost of the past to discriminate against the living are and should be coming to an end. Our choice today is whether it will end through carefully crafted amendments or will it be through the judicial act. All we are trying to do is change section 5 so that every citizen in this country, whether you are from Tennessee, whether you are from Wisconsin, have the same equal rights that minorities in Georgia have.

And when you get time, look at these maps. On the right it shows you everybody that is in white is not under section 5. If you are in a color, you are under section 5. Everybody on the map on the left covers 39 States that actually have been guilty of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. I do not understand how you can go home and you can say you are all for equal rights, fair rights, protections for voters in Georgia, but it is not all right to have those same protections in Tennessee or in Arkansas or in Wisconsin or Ohio. What is wrong with looking at the whole Nation? Everybody is not going to go under it. Everybody is not going to break section 5 formula. But others are besides just us. And on that map Georgia stays under section 5, and I hate it. I wish we were not. Ten counties might get out, but they can only get out for 4 years. The Attorney General is going to be requested to look at it every 4 years and all across the country, including Ohio and including Florida. What is wrong with that? I fail to understand why anybody would find fault.

You say that we have had so many objections, meaning Georgia. I promise you an objection does not automatically mean discrimination. We have had five objections since 2000. One of them came from a majority black city council, and it was thrown out. That puts us in the penalty box for another 10 years.

Let me quote what my good friend John Lewis said in an affidavit:

The State (Georgia) is not the same State it was. It's not

the same State that it was in 1965 or in 1975 or even in 1980

or 1990. We have changed. We have come a great distance. I

think that it's not just in Georgia but in the American

South. I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of

race.

Clearly John is proud of Georgia's progress, as am I.

Congressman Lewis is not alone in recognizing progress.

Here's how my State's African American Attorney General Thurbert Baker testified before a Federal three judge panel in 2001.

The State's (Georgia) racial and political experience in

recent years is radically different than it was 10 or 20

years ago, and that is exemplified on every level of politics

from statewide elections on down. The election history for

legislative offices in the Georgia House, Senate, and the

United States Congress reflect a high level of success of

African American candidates.

But this is more critical. The Judiciary Committee record seems to show that the problems that do continue to exist occur across the Nation, not just the States in the covered jurisdictions.

So why isn't the Judiciary Committee going after these current potential violations instead of dwelling on those from four decades ago?

Since 1965, there have been 83 Department of Justice objections raised to voting changes in Georgia.

And here's a critical point for the record--a DOJ objection does not equal guilt.

DOJ itself withdrew 14 of those 83 objections.

When my State tried to satisfy one of those objections in drawing congressional districts, the district lines demanded by DOJ objection were then thrown out by the Supreme Court. So objection does not equal violation.

Fifty-five of the 83 objections were in the first 10 years as the act was being implemented, leaving 28 objections between 1975 and now.

Only seven objections have been stated since 2000, well within national averages. And again, an objection is not a violation.

It's now been 40 years since the Voting Rights Act took effect. Georgia has a higher percentage of black elected officials than the overwhelming majority of States not included in Section 5 Federal oversight.

Yet the Federal oversight continues.

Nationwide, there are 9,101 black elected officials. Blacks make up 11.4 percent of voters, and 1.8 percent of elected officials.

In contrast, Georgia has 611 black elected officials. Blacks make up 26.6 percent of our population, and 9.3 percent of elected officials.

That's more than double the level of black representation of the Nation as a whole.

Black elected officials make up 20 percent of our State House and Senate members, and 30 percent of our members to the U.S. House.

Georgia has a black Attorney General, elected by voters statewide. Georgia has a black Supreme Court Justice.

Georgia and the South now lead the Nation in civil rights achievements, putting to shame the record of those States who continue to point their hypocritical fingers at the grave of Bull Connor.

Yet Georgia remains on the Federal oversight list, while States with a fraction of our percentage of black elected officials per capita remain oversight free.

If Georgia remains on that list without modification, then the majority of the people of a State, who have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose legislators have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose State has one of the highest levels of minority elected officials in the Nation, will have their State's constitutional right to determine political boundaries and election rules usurped without justification.

That's a clear-cut violation of the U.S. Constitution. And it's voter discrimination against every Georgian.

Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming were included in 1970, but successfully filed ``bailout'' lawsuits that allowed them to get off the list, because no one had a political reason to object.

To successfully file a bailout, the State must prove that during the past 10 years no scheme such as poll taxes or literacy tests have been used; all changes affecting voting have been reviewed prior to their implementation; no change has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the District of Columbia district court; there have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination; there are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and Federal examiners have not been assigned.

As can easily be seen, a simple accusation will keep a State off the bailout list for 10 years at a time.

DOJ can file an objection, then withdraw it, and that's all that's necessary to keep Georgia under Section 5 another 10 years.

There must be a more lawful means for the citizens of Georgia to regain voting rights equality with the rest of America.

Later today I will bring an amendment to ensure that all Americans will have equal protection under the Voting Rights Act.

Under this amendment, minority voters nationwide will have access to the same Section 5 protections, if there has been a violation of their rights.

At the same time, all voters across America will be treated the same if there has been no violation in the last 12 years.

With this amendment, the Voting Rights Act will be restored to its original intent--to end unjust discrimination in Voting Rights, for all Americans.

This amendment provides lawful means to win release from Section 5, while expanding minority voting rights protections nationally.

It is the only commonsense solution to avoiding a constitutional challenge.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to submit for the Record an article from Dr. Ronald Gaddie of the University of Oklahoma and an article from the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Chairman, when the original Voting Rights Act passed this House, it was to correct voting discrimination evident in the 1964 Presidential election. The legal protections and enforcement scheme in the new law were all designed around that challenge.

The specific challenges of 1964 have long ago been rectified, yet the specific enforcement scheme contained in sections 4 and 5 remain based on 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections. Here are the current rules on the VRA:

To fall under section 5 Federal oversight, a voting jurisdiction has to have committed both of the following offenses:

One, they must have maintained discriminatory tests or devices to discourage voting in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.

Two, they had to have fallen below 50 percent voter registration or turnout in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections.

Note that an area must have committed both offenses back then to fall under section 5.

We have a rare opportunity today to update the Voting Rights Act and bring it back into compliance with the original intent of the bill to safeguard voting rights all across the country, not just in the current 16 States.

Instead of continuing to face legal protections on 1964 conditions, this amendment will update them to modern results and toughen the standard, and, indeed, add more jurisdictions under the Voting Rights Act.

First, instead of requiring a jurisdiction to violate both of the standards to fall under section 5 oversight, a jurisdiction is placed in the penalty box for violating either one of the two triggers.

Second, the Presidential election years used to determine violations are updated to the most recent three elections, 1996, 2000, 2004. They would be automatically updated in the future to ensure that the act stays current.

Third, the penalty period for new violations is increased from the current 10-year bailout rule to 12 years, by requiring an area demonstrate three

clean Presidential elections in a row in order to get out of the penalty box.

Under this amendment, the Justice Department is ordered to automatically review nationwide results and add noncomplying areas to the section 4 list or section 5 oversight after each 4-year cycle. Any jurisdiction that does not violate either trigger for three Presidential election years in a row will be automatically removed from section 5.

That is a real incentive for State and local governments to move aggressively into compliance with the Voting Rights Act. It guarantees the terms for getting off the list, without bankrupting local governments with legal bills as do the current arbitrary 10-year bailout requirements, which in many cases are impossible to meet. And it is certain that a partisan Justice Department wants to make sure you stay under there for 10 years, and with enough time we will explain how they do that.

The Justice Department will therefore determine whether specific jurisdictions need to be added or deleted from Federal oversight list based on their performance in 1996, 2000, and 2004 rather than 1964, with automatic rolling updates to future election cycles.

The end result of this amendment would be expanded Federal oversight in areas with current violations, and section 5 oversight relief for areas with long-standing historic Voting Rights Act compliance.

My State of Georgia, under my amendment, will unfortunately, remain on the list since we fell below the 50 percent trigger in 1996.

There are currently 837 jurisdictions under section 5 oversight. That would be on the chart to the right. Under this amendment, there would be a minimum, with my new amendment there would be a minimum of 1,010 covered jurisdictions all across the country in 39 States. That is indicated by the chart on my left. The white areas are people not under 5; under my amendment the colored areas are people who would be under 5 because they broke the same rule under section 4 as we did in Georgia.

In fact, there would be substantially more than that. Our researchers could only find areas out of compliance in 2000 and 2004, without spending a great deal of money in 1996, but we will know 1996. So all these areas that failed to comply in 1996 would also be added to section 5 oversight as well. We just can't tell you for sure right now how many more that might be.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will significantly improve voting rights protections by eliminating default amnesty for modern violations. It will provide understandable and clearly defined goals for areas not in compliance with either original trigger, and thereby encourage vigorous remedial action by those governments, and actually strengthening and updating the Voting Rights Act to go after current violations.

I do not understand why it is not important about violators in 2004, but we seem to not take that up in H.R. 9.

Our amendment provides long-overdue equity to the areas of our country that unjustly remain under penalty for 40-year-old violations that have long been remedied. And do not kid yourself, just because a partisan Justice Department objects to a submittal does not necessarily mean they are right. The Supreme Court has said on occasion that they are wrong. Nor does it mean that there has been any discrimination.

I urge Members to support updating the Voting Rights Act for the 21st century with this amendment

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to simply point out that most of what the chairman said I certainly don't agree with, and I fully expect the Supreme Court not to agree with it either.

I didn't write section 4, but I can read even though I am not a lawyer. It is very clear what the mechanism in section 4 says and means to put you under section 5, and there is no reason, I think, on earth, that every jurisdiction in this country shouldn't have to live under the same rule.

The scattered counties we are talking about over there that would go under section 5 end up being 200 or 300 more that aren't under there now. And, Mr. Chairman, if you think they have problems in Montana in discriminating, you ought to do something about it. All I can do is have them follow section 4 of the original VRA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention to my colleague that 43 of the people you had testify were 43 people who came in to justify what you had done in H.R. 9. Everybody has been here long enough to know how you set up hearings. There were three people in that whole group that disagreed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Chairman, I came to the House floor today with every desire--every hope in my heart--to vote for extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Unfortunately, later this afternoon when the vote is actually called, even after several amendments that in my view would improve it have been voted on and, in all likelihood, voted down--it will be with a heavy heart--but a clear conscious--that I must vote against the underlying bill.

Please allow me to explain.

Mr. Chairman, there are 160 members of this House who are attorneys by training. Some were judges and have ruled on the merits of the law; others were distinguished members of the bar in their hometowns and communities before they were elected to Congress.

All, I am certain, are more qualified than I am--as I am not an attorney--to look at the Voting Rights Act of 1965--and its subsequent extensions over the years--and argue with more authority and legal knowledge the pros and cons of Section 2 or Section 4 or Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, or whether or not Ashcroft v. Georgia should or should not remain a factor as new congressional district lines are drawn in the coming decades.

Likewise, every one of us here in this body comes to Congress with some degree of political acumen and understanding.

Many of our colleagues were former legislators back home; we have former governors and secretaries of state, former political science professors who once taught the subject in the classroom, even a former wrestling coach who serves today with great distinction as our Speaker.

Every person in this room is as qualified as I am--many are probably more so to peer into the proverbial ``crystal ball'' we all wish we had and try to guess whether by passing this extension, we'll be making our country a ``little more red'' or a ``little more blue.''

Let's be honest, Mr. Chairman, for many in this hallowed chamber, that is what this vote today is all about.

But while I am neither an attorney who has mastered Constitutional law nor a political expert who has extraordinary vision, I believe it is safe to say that I am the only member of this body who was born in Selma, AL, arguably one of the most significant sites in our Nation's struggle to advance the civil rights of all Americans.

As a child of the South born in the late 1950s, it is fair to say that I watched the Civil Rights Movement unfold before my very eyes.

No, I would never pretend to fully understand as a boy what men like my colleague and friend, Congressman John Lewis, went through to advance the cause of racial justice.

There is not another member of this body for whom I have greater respect or hold in higher regard than John Lewis, who, himself, is an Alabama native.

While I was a child watching the Civil Rights Movement progress, he was a young man helping to make it all happen.

And seemingly without malice in his heart, he turned the other cheek time and time again, even as Bull Conner, Jim Clark and others beat him, jailed him, spit on him, cursed him and did everything in their might to break his spirit and determination.

That, Mr. Chairman, is one reason why I have such a heavy burden with this vote.

Let me be clear about one thing: although many of our forefathers did not believe so at the time, the original Civil Rights Act of 1965 was necessary medicine to remedy an age-old ill and we Republicans can be proud--extremely proud--of the lead role our party played in its passage and enactment.

In 1965, racial discrimination was real--especially at the ballot box. In my birthplace of Selma, just over 2 percent of the registered voters were listed as African-American--even though the town of 30,000 people was over 57 percent black.

I remember hearing my parents talk about the numerous injustices that were taking place all over the South . . . of having a separate section for young blacks to watch a movie in the Alco Theater in Camden where I grew up, of having ``Colored'' water fountains at the Wilcox County Courthouse and other symbols--some large, some small--but all of which were intended to divide our country based almost solely on the color of a person's skin.

Mr. Chairman, today we can say with certainty that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was needed and it worked. It did what it was intended to do. And in more ways than we can innumerate, we can thank God that it has changed our country for the better.

The Alabama I grew up in--in the 1960s--is a far cry from the Alabama I am privileged to represent here in this great body today.

Isn't it fitting that the first African-American female to serve our country as secretary of state is none other than a daughter of Birmingham, a lady who, as a little girl, knew the four other children who were tragically killed when a bomb exploded on Sunday, September 15, 1963, exposing the face of evil that reared its ugly head at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.

Not a day passes when I am not so extremely proud to know that whether on the world stage, where there is so much strife and division, or coming back to help victims of Hurricane Katrina in her home State, Dr. Condeleeza Rice is a person of the highest moral standing, of the greatest integrity and is a shining example to us all.

Mr. Chairman, 50 years after she had been arrested simply for refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery to a white man, wasn't it appropriate for our Nation's capitol--this majestic building recognized around the world as a symbol of hope and freedom--to bestow its highest honor by allowing the body of Mrs. Rosa Parks, a former seamstress who went on to become the ``mother of the Civil Rights Movement,'' to lie in state for the Nation--and the world--to mourn her passing?

But, you see, Mr. Chairman, by extending the very provisions that were so necessary and needed in the 1960s--and by imposing for another 25 years the sanctions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on a region of the country that has changed--and has changed for the better--what we are doing today is merely celebrating the success of the Selma to Montgomery march without acknowledging that the march for justice should continue.

It should continue to Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia Counties in Florida, where many of our colleagues and even more Americans believe with all their hearts that the presidential election of 2000 was stolen by the Supreme Court and a few hundred hanging chads.

If the prescription for suppressing the voting rights of African- Americans and other minorities who were disenfranchised in the South in the 1960s worked--and it did--then why are we not continuing the march for equality and justice for the citizens in Milwaukee and Chicago and Cleveland and the other great cities of our country who, in recent elections, have protested that their right to vote was compromised and their voice in this great democracy was intimidated?

The Alabama of today can boast the fact that there are more African- American elected officials in Alabama than any other state in the nation. That's quite a statement, Mr. Speaker,

a statement of real progress over the past 40 years. I count many of these men and women as my close friends and partners as, together, we are working to build a better State and region for our children and grandchildren, regardless of the color of their skin.

One person, in particular, whom I count as just such a partner is my friend and colleague, Congressman Artur Davis. On several occasions, Artur and I have held joint town meetings in Clarke County, a county that we both represent, as well as shared the stage in other Alabama cities talking about the progress our home State has made in recent years.

Without a doubt, Artur represents the very best Alabama has to offer; he is not only a rising star on the Democrat side of the aisle, but he is truly a leader whose vision and voice this Nation can benefit from.

Regretfully, on this issue, Artur and I respectfully disagree with each other.

He believes that it would be unconstitutional to make Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act apply to the entire Nation. I, on the other hand, believe if it is unconstitutional for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to apply to the rest of the Nation, then it might well be unconstitutional for it to continue to apply only to those States that were placed under it more than 40 years ago.

Last year, my hometown, Mobile, added a chapter to the rich history of progress that has come our way on this long and often-painful journey in that we elected our first African-American mayor, even though the majority of our citizens and the majority of the registered voters in Mobile are Caucasian.

As Mayor Sam Jones said on election night, ``we are too busy to be divided,'' but Mayor Jones' victory should tell us all that Dr. King's vision of an America where his ``four children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,'' that America is more real today, Mr. Speaker, than ever before.

Are we where we need to be?

Have we completed our journey?

Of course not.

But make no mistake, discrimination does not stop at a State line and, sadly, it knows no boundaries. And that is precisely why, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this particular extension of the Voting Rights Act because, at least in my humble opinion, it continues to pretend that the only vestiges of racism and discrimination exist in the nine states and the few other selected counties throughout the country that were originally covered.

And assuming that the four amendments that have been ruled in order-- those by Mr. Norwood of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert of Texas, Mr. King of Iowa and Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia--assuming these four amendments all fail, and they most likely will--then what we have left is nothing but a hollow gesture.

It is true that some of our colleagues will most likely march to the microphone later today to declare this as a significant victory but, in all reality, it is nothing more than a very regretful missed opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I wish with all of my heart that we had spent as much time over the past few months working to expand to the entire Nation the precious right of freedom and the privilege of voting without fear or retribution.

I regret that we were not able to be bold enough to say to the southern States which have shown so much progress that, after 40 years of advancement, we are now ready to move forward and give those areas where the sins of our fathers are no longer committed an opportunity to come out from under the burden of crawling to the U.S. Justice Department, on bended knee, and asking for its blessing to continue on the march for equality.

I truly lament the fact that, as our great Nation is in the midst of an important national debate, one that is focused on how we secure our borders and deal with the all-important matter of having between 11 and 20 million people who are in this country illegally, I can only wish that we had been courageous enough to say, ``if you want to become a citizen of this country and enjoy the many benefits that come with that citizenship, then you need to learn English--which is our national language--and you need to become a full-fledged participant in what has made--and continues to make--us different from almost every other country in the world and that is our right to participate in free elections and self-governance.''

Mr. Chairman, you see for me to cast a vote for this extension is asking me to condemn my beloved Alabama to another 25 years of being punished for mistakes that are no longer being made.

I know in my heart that the drumbeat for justice must continue and the battle for equality is long from over. I know more progress can be made--and will be made--in the coming months and years.

But I also believe, with every ounce of my being, that this bill will have to pass without my support. For the real opportunity to empower people--and bring credibility to the process that we hold so dear--that opportunity is one that could have been but will not be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes, and I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, before going into the substance of what we are doing today, I would like to make note that a few weeks ago in the Rules Committee when we were originally contemplating this bill, I offered an amendment to the rule that would have extended general debate to 4 hours, ensuring that all Members, Republican and Democrat, were afforded the opportunity to have their voices heard on the House's actions today. My amendment, however, was defeated along a straight party line, and I did not offer it again yesterday.

However, the majority provided 2 hours of general debate in the last rule on their other circumstances, and they also provided 2 hours of general debate on their politically driven flag-burning amendment.

If the flag is the symbol of democracy, then the Voting Rights Act is the very foundation on which that flag flies. It is both troubling and telling that the majority is unwilling to extend today's debate beyond 90 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as debate on this historic bill commences, I am reminded of President Kennedy's words delivered to Congress in 1962 with the first draft of what would later become both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. President Kennedy wrote, and I quote, ``In this year of the emancipation centennial, justice requires us to ensure the blessing of liberty for all Americans and their posterity, not merely for reasons of economic efficiency, world diplomacy and domestic tranquility, but above all, because it is right.''

For African Americans, there exists a no more seminal piece of law, other than the Civil Rights Act, than the Voting Rights Act. Today, more than 40 years after its initial passage, Congress is again faced with an historic decision to reauthorize this mandate.

Americans have come together over the years to denounce systematic segregation and racism. Indeed, we have come a long way. But we cannot become complacent and take for granted the liberties and rights which this law provides and affords.

Today's discussion cannot only be about preserving the right to vote for those of us who already enjoy it. It has to be about ensuring that Americans from all walks of life and countries of origin are provided with these very same rights.

There are some in this body who may argue or imply that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed. They may call for an end to the act's preclearance and bilingual ballot requirements. Others may go so far as to suggest that English proficiency be a precondition to voting.

For them, this is not a debate about fairness. It is about ideology. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, ideology has no place in today's debate.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted to break down the walls built by Jim Crow, not build them back up. There is no difference between a poll tax, a literacy test or an English proficiency requirement as a precondition to voting. All are draconian and targeted efforts to block a specific group of people from voting and, I might add, people who are registered voters and citizens of the United States.

Each attempt by a Republican Member to precondition minimum language requirements with the right to vote, in my judgment, breathes new life into a form of Jim Crow. Each attempt by a Republican Member to dilute the influence of minority voters mocks longstanding legislative and judicial precedent and mandates. When this happens, we are reminded why this law still today is so critically needed.

We will hopefully extend the Voting Rights Act by 25 years today. We should extend it beyond 100 years because some of the problems will probably continue to exist that long.

The harsh reality remains that the suppression and disenfranchisement of minority voters is still tolerated today. We saw it in Florida in 2000. We saw it in Ohio in 2004, and we will probably see it again in 2006 in November and in 2008 in some other State where people require a victory regardless of the means to their end.

We should fear those who dismiss concerns, deny such problems exist, and claim ignorance and naivete as reasons for the years of neglect. These are the answers given by those who have sat idly by throughout history when the rights and privileges of the weak and poor have been trampled on by the powerful. These were the very answers given by those who opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts more than 40 years ago. We will hear from their 21st century ideological soulmates later today when we debate mean-spirited and morally dubious amendments.

I stand before you as a victim of decades of injustice rooted in racial segregation. Through these eyes, I bore witness to the absolute tyranny of those who stop at nothing to stop blacks from achieving statutory equality and the right to vote. Through these eyes, I have also seen hate and racism give way to tolerance and fairness.

When history judges our actions today, it will question whether or not we met the expectations levied by those who have come before us. Did we break down barriers or did we build up walls?

Did we start a chapter in American history aimed at addressing the challenging of multiculturalism, prejudicial discrimination, and blatant xenophobia, or permit the continued manifestation of these sad realities in our country?

For years, Mr. Speaker, many of us have fought tirelessly to honor the memories of civil rights advocates who came before us. It is their shoulders on which I stand and my colleagues stand today, the shoulders of Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King and Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass and Nat Turner and so many courageous others, white and black. It is their successes which we seek to emulate; their words through which we attempt to tie the past with the present and inspire for the future.

Colleagues, do not use today as an opportunity to congratulate ourselves.

Today is not a day of jubilation. New faces have been added to the struggle, and that struggle continues. Any attack on their right to vote is an attack on ours.

I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and reject any attempt to amend it. We should do this not for the partisan benefit, but because, as John Kennedy said, ``It is right.'' Voting rights is right.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\3/ 4\ minutes to the distinguished minority whip from Maryland, my good friend, Steny Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee and my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

(Mr. DOGGETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who will be leaving us, but will leave us with wonderful words, my friend.

(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague took cognizance of the fact that Florida still needs help; and I would remind him that it is a Republican majority there now.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a former voting rights attorney.

(Mr. BUTTERFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my classmate and good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former judge.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who has been a leader in this fight for a substantial number of years.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who is also my classmate and one of the three African Americans that was elected as a result of the Voting Rights Act, the first in 129 years in our State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, this is not a period for jubilation. We do not have to come here and congratulate ourselves for the reason that suggests that history is our best judge.

I also said that through these eyes I have seen the tyranny of racism. And through these eyes I have seen this great Nation change and become more tolerant. But to suggest that we have arrived at a point where we no longer would need the Voting Rights Act and measures that protect minorities would be foolhardy.

The harsh reality remains that the suppression and disenfranchisement of minority voters is still tolerated. We saw it, as Ms. Brown just said, in 2000. We saw it, as Ms. Tubbs Jones just said, in 2004 in Ohio. And the likelihood is that we will see it in 2006 and 2008 in some other State where it seems that those in the majority require a victory regardless of the means to their end.

We should fear those who dismiss concerns, deny such problems exist, and claim ignorance and naivete as to the reasons for years of neglect. These are the answers given by those who sat idly by throughout history when the rights and privileges of the weak and poor have been trampled on by the power.

When history judges our actions today, it will question whether or not we met the expectations levied by those who have come before us: Did we break down barriers or build up walls? Did we adhere to the Biblical admonition that we are our brother's keeper?

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, while young Americans die abroad in the name of democracy, some in this Congress scheme to undermine democracy at home by not renewing key provisions in the Voting Rights Act. They even seek a voter literacy test.

Blind to abuses here, one Congressman recently declared that ``I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore.'' This shows not only insensitivity and indifference, it shows why we need to renew completely, without weakening amendments, the Voting Rights Act.

President Lyndon B. Johnson had the will and the courage to secure passage of this fundamental guarantee even though he understood the price that he and the Democratic Party would pay. Now it is not only the law but the Administration's will to enforce that law that is at stake. Overruling professionals at the U.S. Department of Justice, political appointees disregarded obvious Voting Rights Act violations in both the DeLay gerrymandering of Texas and the Georgia voter identification law. The professional employees were vindicated by the courts, but a third of the lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division have left.

Renewing democracy abroad begins with renewing democracy at home.

The Washington Post published a series of articles that document the politicization of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration: November 27, 2005, December 2, 2005, December 10, 2005, and January 23, 2006.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2005]

Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal

(By Dan Eggen)

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark

Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep.

Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a

previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post.

But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two

analysts in the department's voting section, said the

redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic

voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the

plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities

had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence

in elections.

``The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that

the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a

discriminatory effect,'' the memo concluded. The memo also

found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who

helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of

being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.

But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway

because it would maximize the number of Republican federal

lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was

approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in

the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control

of Congress.

J. Gerald ``Gerry'' Hebert, one of the lawyers representing

Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in

court, said of the Justice Department's action: ``We always

felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was.

. . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed

bag or anything like that. This should have been a very

clear-cut case.''

But Justice Department spokesman Eric W. Holland said the

decision to approve the Texas plan was vindicated by a three-

judge panel that rejected the Democratic challenge. The case

is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

``The court ruled that, in fact, the new congressional plan

created a sufficient number of safe minority districts given

the demographics of the state and the requirements of the

law,'' Holland said. He added that Texas now has three

African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the

redistricting.

Texas Republicans also have maintained that the plan did

not dilute minority votes and that the number of

congressional districts with a majority of racial minorities

remained unchanged at 11. The total number of congressional

districts, however, grew from 30 to 32.

The 73-page memo, dated Dec. 12, 2003, has been kept under

tight wraps for two years. Lawyers who worked on the case

were subjected to an unusual gag rule. The memo was provided

to The Post by a person connected to the case who is critical

of the adopted redistricting map. Such recommendation memos,

while not binding, historically carry great weight within the

Justice Department.

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states

with a history of discriminatory elections are required to

submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for

approval by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

The Texas case provides another example of conflict between

political appointees and many of the division's career

employees. In a separate case, The Post reported last month

that a team was overruled when it recommended rejecting a

controversial Georgia voter-identification program that was

later struck down as unconstitutional by a court.

Mark Posner, a longtime Justice Department lawyer who now

teaches law at American University, said it was ``highly

unusual'' for political appointees to overrule a unanimous

finding such as the one in the Texas case.

``In this kind of situation, where everybody agrees at

least on the staff level . . . that is a very, very strong

case,'' Posner said. ``The fact that everybody agreed that

there were reductions in minority voting strength, and that

they were significant, raises a lot of questions as to why it

was'' approved, he said.

The Texas memo also provides new insight into the highly

politicized environment surrounding that state's

redistricting fight, which prompted Democratic state

lawmakers to flee the state in hopes of derailing the plan.

DeLay and his allies participated intensively as they pushed

to redraw Texas's congressional boundaries and strengthen GOP

control of the U.S. House.

DeLay, the former House majority leader, is fighting state

felony counts of money laundering and conspiracy--crimes he

is charged with committing by unlawfully injecting corporate

money into state elections. His campaign efforts were made in

preparation for the new congressional map that was the focus

of the Justice Department memo.

One of two DeLay aides also under indictment in the case,

James W. Ellis, is cited in the Justice Department memo as

pushing for the plan despite the risk that it would not

receive ``preclearance,'' or approval, from the department.

Ellis and other DeLay aides successfully forced the adoption

of their plan over two other versions passed by Texas

legislators that would not have raised as many concerns about

voting rights discrimination, the memo said.

``We need our map, which has been researched and vetted for

months,'' Ellis wrote in an October 2003 document, according

to the Justice Department memo. ``The pre-clearance and

political risks are the delegation's and we are willing to

assume those risks, but only with our map.''

Hebert said the Justice Department's approval of the

redistricting plan, signed by Sheldon T. Bradshaw, principal

deputy assistant attorney general, was valuable to Texas

officials when they defended it in court. He called the

internal Justice Department memo, which did not come out

during

the court case, ``yet another indictment of Tom DeLay,

because this memo shows conclusively that the map he produced

violated the law.''

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden called Hebert's

characterization ``nonsensical political babble'' and echoed

the Justice Department in pointing to court rulings that have

found no discriminatory impact on minority voters.

``Fair and reasonable arguments can be made in favor of the

map's merits that also refute any notion that the plan is

unfair or doesn't meet legal standards,'' Madden said.

``Ultimately the court will decide whether the criticisms

have any weight or validity.''

Testimony in the civil lawsuit demonstrated that DeLay and

Ellis insisted on last-minute changes during the Texas

legislature's final deliberations. Ellis said DeLay traveled

to Texas to attend many of the meetings that produced the

final map, and Ellis himself worked through the state's

lieutenant governor and a state senator to shape the

outcome.

In their analysis, the Justice Department lawyers

emphasized that the last-minute changes--made in a

legislative conference committee, out of public view--

fundamentally altered legally acceptable redistricting

proposals approved separately by the Texas House and Senate.

``It was not necessary'' for these plans to be altered,

except to advance partisan political goals, the department

lawyers concluded.

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Texas Attorney General

Greg Abbott, said he did not have any immediate comment.

The Justice Department memo recommending rejection of the

Texas plan was written by two analysts and five lawyers. In

addition, the head of the voting section at the time, Joseph

Rich, wrote a concurring opinion. Rich has since left the

department and declined to comment on the memo yesterday.

The complexity of the arguments surrounding the Voting

Rights Act is evident in the Justice Department memo, which

focused particular attention on seats held in 2003 by a white

Democrat, Martin Frost, and a Hispanic Republican, Henry

Bonilla.

Voting data showed that Frost commanded great support from

minority constituents, while Bonilla had relatively little

support from Hispanics. The question to be considered by

Justice Department lawyers was whether the new map was

``retrogressive,'' because it diluted the power of minority

voters to elect their candidate of choice. Under the adopted

Texas plan, Frost's congressional district was dismantled,

while the proportion of Hispanics in Bonilla's district

dropped significantly. Those losses to black and Hispanic

voters were not offset by other gains, the memo said.

``This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in

minority voting strength,'' Rich wrote in his concurring

opinion. ``The state's argument that it has increased

minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under

careful analysis.''